Characteristics of the German-Norwegian Type 212CD Submarine

The above Youtube is from Poland's Balt Military Expo 2018. At 1 minute in the Type 212CD is introduced by a senior ThyssenKrupp executive. (Youtube courtesy Xavier Vavasseur, Chief Editor, Navy Recognition). 
---

Following Anonymous’s December 20, 2017 advice thanks Anonymous for providing comments of February 12, 2019 further translated below by Pete.

According to recent information [1], [2] and [3] the TKMS Type 212CD (for Common Design) will be equipped with Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs), two MTU diesels, a new generation PMSM (Siemens Permasyn motor) and new generation fuel cell (FC) AIP (utilising Siemens' metal hydride).

In the new generation FC, the metal hydride as a hydrogen source makes it safer than a more flammable hydrogen cylinder. A downside of metal hydride is its heavy weight, so an overall increase in submarine buoyancy is needed.

TKMS and Spain’s SENER are developing a more advanced methanol reforming FC technology. A weak point of methanol reforming FC is its limited diving depth due to the physical need to expel carbon dioxide against countervailing water pressure. Such a limitation has already been identified in Kockums Stirling AIP technology.

Like the preceding Type 212A, the 212CD’s hull is made of non-magnetic steel.

Judging by the ease of design, efficiency of production and common use of parts, the 212CD is presumably a larger version of the existing 212A owing to the extra diesel and larger crew quarters on the 212CD . This is in the same way that SAAB A26 Pelagic series can be stretched (with a hull plug addition) into Oceanic and Oceanic ER versions.

The hull diameter/beam of the 212CD may be the same (at 6.8m) as the 212A. This is because any change to the diameter would require a total rearrangement of 212 structure and parts. L (length) to D(diameter) ratio for the 212A is 8.23 (L=56m, D=6.8m) within the maximum L/D ration of a modern submarine of 10.5.

If L/D ration for the 212CD is 10.5, then this may point to a theoretical Length of 71.5m for the 212CD. Furthermore this may point to a 212CD displacement increase of around 20% (maybe 2,200 long tons submerged) compared to the 212A’s 1,830 long tons submerged.

Noting this caution, the 212CD’s LIBs will very likely be SAFT made lithium iron phosphate (LFP) which is stable at low temperature making the 212CD suited to operation in below zero Celsius Baltic Sea or Arctic Ocean conditions.

A simple exchange of the 212A’s Lead-acid Batteries (LABs) for LIBs is not feasible because LIBs operate at significantly higher voltages than LABs. This means many of the components and electrical junctions for the 212CD will need to be new.

Use of the 212CD for the Netherland’s Walrus replacement is difficult, because the likely Dutch diameter/beam requirement is 8.4m, which is considerably larger than the 212CD’s possible 6.8m diameter. This means if TKMS does not offer a large Type 216 (once offered to Australia) TKMS may lose a Walrus replacement decision in the early 2020s. Instead a large SAAB A26  (and see) or a small Naval Group Shortfin may win the Walrus replacement competition.

[1] https://www.tu.no/artikler/norges-nye-ubater-kan-fa-nyutviklede-litiumion-batterier-fra-thyssenkrupp/449338 [right-click mouse translate from Norwegian.] Norway's new submarines can receive newly developed lithium ion batteries offered by ThyssenKrupp.

[2] https://www.tu.no/artikler/norges-nye-ubat-kan-bli-forst-med-litiumionbatterier-eller-sist-med-blybatterier/427238 [in Norwegian] Norway's new submarine can be first with lithium-ion batteries - or last with lead-acid batteries.

[3] https://www.defence24.com/pdf/?article=orka--the-german-way-will-the-polish-navy-submarines-be-built-in-szczecin [PDF about 5MB, in English] “ORKA – The German Way: Will The Polish Navy Submarines Be Built In Szczecin?” page 5. There is a scarcity of information available on the 212CD submarines. Even the dimensions remain confidential. The vessel is going to be derived from the 212A submarines. As the representatives of the shipyard admit, the [212CD] will be fitted with two MTU diesels, while the older [212As] use a single [diesel]. Also see more on Poland’s future submarine competition.

COMMENT

As will be seen next week there is uncertainty over the Type 212CD’s 2 x MTU diesel arrangement, which may make it more suitable as a Walrus replacement than originally thought.

Mostly Anonymous and a bit Pete

France's Naval Group About the Future Australian Submarine Program SPA

Following on from yesterday's article on what the Australian Govenment said about the Shortfin Barracuda Future Australian Submarine Program Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA) is

what French Government owned Naval Group says about the SPA.

Further comment and analysis, at Submarine Matters, will follow next week, noting the Australian Morrison Coalition Government will almost certainly be out of office on May 18, 2019, if not before with a new Labor Party Government in office. 

A rapid ousting of the Australian Government that signed the SPA will weaken the legitimacy of the SPA.

As usual I've added comments in [...] brackets, links and some bolding for emphasis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

At http://naval-group.com.au/2019/02/11/naval-group-signs-the-strategic-partnering-agreement/

Happy signees of the Strategic Partnering Agreement Canberra February 11 2019. French Armed Forces Minister Florence Parly is in the center. (Photo courtesy Naval Group and Australian Department of Defence)

---

"NAVAL GROUP SIGNS THE STRATEGIC PARTNERING AGREEMENT

February 11, 2019

A significant milestone has been achieved today with the signing of the Future Submarine Program Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA) by the Commonwealth of Australia (CoA) and Naval Group.

The agreement was signed in the presence of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, The Hon. Christopher Pyne, Minister for Defence and Florence Parly, French Minister for the Armed Forces. 

[despite Morrison being present no equivalent French President or French Prime Minister was present. So why did Morrison turn up? Or why was the French PM not there?] 

The agreement sets out the principles of cooperation between the two partners for the Attack class Submarine Program which will see:

·       the delivery of 12 regionally superior submarines to Australia with leading edge capabilities; [maybe the Shortfin Attack class will be superior conventional subs but are/will be far inferior to China's SSNs] 

• the delivery of new technologies and advanced manufacturing capabilities to Australia, introducing the next phase of Australian sovereignty as a submarine nation;
• the creation of thousands of direct and indirect Australian jobs which will positively impact many generations of Australians; and
• opportunities and long-term planning certainty for industry, allowing Australian companies involved in the submarine program to invest in the capabilities needed to support their involvement in construction and sustainment activities.

“Naval Group is known for building world-leading, technologically advanced submarines and has built 100 of them for nine different countries,” said Hervé Guillou, Chairman and CEO, Naval Group.

“This agreement with Australia will see Naval Group transfer the “know-how” and “know-why” to Australia to become a sovereign submarine nation. [Assembling a large proportion of French and Lockheed Martin (LM) US combat system parts does not add up to "sovereign". Don't forget the US LM mainly operating in Adelaide, is undertaking one third of the whole project.]

“We are very excited about the opportunities that lay ahead of us and are committed to delivering the Future Submarine Program for Australia.

“We are grateful to the teams from the Commonwealth of Australia and Naval Group who have worked hard to achieve this agreement,” said Mr Guillou.

Since being selected as Australia’s partner for the Attack class Submarine Program in April 2016, a lot has been achieved. 
[Really? Given full-sized hydrodynamic trials and stealth testing of the yet-to-be-launched baseline Barracuda SSN has not yet been achieved.]

Program milestones

• Pre-sizing of the Future Submarine has been completed.
• The Feasibility Study phase of the Future Submarine design contract being undertaken in France with the support of Australian engineers has been completed. This involves working closely with the Commonwealth to ensure the Future Submarine meets functionality, scheduling and cost requirements.
• The first sod has been turned at the Future Submarine construction yard in Adelaide. Phase 1 of the onsite works will focus on site establishment, earth works and piling for the new facilities with the development to create at least 600 jobs.
• The transfer of technology commenced with the relocation of the first group of Australian engineers to France to learn how to carry out the detailed design of the Future Submarines. The next group of engineers will depart for France in March 2019.
• Officially opened the Future Submarine Program office in Cherbourg housing Naval Group personnel alongside their Defence and Lockheed Martin Australia [are, there LM is, in Cherbourg (not Adelaide)] colleagues.
• Continued to work with education facilities, TAFEs and universities, having forged a collaborative engineering and research Memorandum of Understanding with the University of New South Wales.
• Suppliers of the top five pieces of equipment including the main motor, diesel generators, switchboards, batteries and weapons discharge systems have been reviewed and will be announced in 2019.

Industry milestones

• Continue to maximise the opportunities for Australian Industry involvement in the program, through all phases, without compromising the Commonwealths requirements against capability, cost and schedule.

o   To date Naval Group has engaged with over 1,100 Australian suppliers through expression of interests, requests for information, supplier visits and industry events to develop a in depth understanding of Australia Industry capability.

o   169 Australian suppliers have been pre-qualified for the program with Naval Group Australia.

o   Conducted numerous engagement activities in France and Australia to connect potential European and Australian suppliers.

• Released Expressions of Interests and Requests for Information for major equipment and common technologies equipment for the Future Submarine.
• Commenced efforts to procure capital equipment related to the Submarine Construction Yard including machining equipment, painting booths, a plate rolling machine, a plasma cutting machine, water jet cutting machine, rotating cradle and a milling machine. [the issue of "milling" a propeller OR parts of a pump jet still needs resolution.]
• Conducted nine Future Submarine industry briefings across the nation providing Australian companies information on how to become involved in the Future Submarine Program.

Naval Group Australia milestones

• Established our headquarters in Keswick, Adelaide.
• Expanded the Naval Group Australia team from 15 employees to over 100. By 2028-2029, when production is in full swing, we expect to employ 1,600 people.
• Successfully became ISO 9001 certified.

See the above Naval Group words in PDF, as well as extra wording about Naval Group and Naval Group Australia contact details here.

COMMENT

Next week - how Naval Group rebutted certain Australian media comments on the severe delay of Naval Group's not-yet-launched baseline Barracuda/Suffren class SSN (laid down 2007 I kid you not!). 

Pete

Australian Government on Future Submarine Program SPA

COMMENT

This is a preliminary, for the record, post on what the current Coalition (noting yesterday’s news) Government of Australian Prime Minister Morrison said. This is regarding the February 11, 2019, Australian Future Submarine Program Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA).

Further comment and analysis, at Submarine Matters, will follow next week, noting the Australian Government will almost certainly be out of office on May 18, 2019, if not before with a new Labor Party Government in office. 

A rapid change of Government, just after the SPA is signed, will weaken the legitimacy of the SPA.

As usual I've added comments in [...] brackets, links and some bolding for emphasis.

--------------------------------

MEDIA RELEASE:11 Feb 2019: Prime Minister [Morrison], Minister for Defence, Minister for Defence Industry https://www.pm.gov.au/media/government-delivers-future-submarine-program

“A key plank of the Government’s plan to keep Australians safe has been locked in with the signing of the Attack class submarine Strategic Partnering Agreement with Naval Group.

The $50 billion Attack class program will see 12 regionally superior [but inferior to SSNs] submarines designed and built in Australia for the Navy.

The formal signing of the Agreement is a defining moment for the country.

The submarines will help protect Australia’s security and prosperity for decades to come and also deepen the defence relationship between Australia and France.

Work on the submarines has taken place under the Design and Mobilisation Contract and this will continue uninterrupted under this Agreement.

Our Government is committed to maximising local industry involvement in the program to ensure Australians get the most out of this important national investment.

It’s estimated the program will generate an annual average of around 2,800 jobs, helping end the ‘valley of death’ in naval shipbuilding jobs we inherited from the Labor Party.

Work continues to deliver the first Attack class submarine, to be named HMAS Attack, in the early 2030s within budget.

The formalisation of this agreement represents the contractual basis for the program.

The decision to partner with Naval Group (formerly DCNS) was made in 2016, following a competitive evaluation process commenced by our Government after the Labor Party failed to commission even one single new ship for our Navy. During the negotiations, the Government focused on delivering an equitable and enduring agreement in the interests of our nation.

Other activities required to deliver this major program, including the development of the submarine construction yard at Osborne in South Australia, are continuing. 

The Attack class submarines are a major pillar of our $90 billion National Shipbuilding Plan, which will see 54 naval vessels built in Australia, to meet the strategic requirements set out in our 2016 Defence White Paper and giving our Navy the edge it needs in an uncertain world.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT

Below is an abridged version of the Transcript deleting most of Morrison’s vacuous embellishments. After all, it is a business deal. Morrison did not need to be part of the event given neither the French President nor the French Prime Minister were there. But perhaps the SPA is Morrison’s Swan song before taking a related post political career position? 

A submarine deal does not maketh a defence alliance with France, particularly since some French companies supply/have supplied weapons and components to China.] 

 -------------

PRIME MINISTER MORRISON TRANSCRIPT, 11 Feb 2019, Russell [DoD] Offices, Canberra https://www.pm.gov.au/media/remarks-strategic-partnership-signing.

PRIME MINISTER [said]: ...I also extend a very warm welcome to [French Armed Forces] Minister Florence Parly, it’s wonderful to have you here with us today. I know you’ve made a special effort to be here with us today...

To his Excellency [French Ambassador to Australia] Christophe Penot, thank you very much for all of your efforts in bringing us to this point today, working so closely....To my ministerial colleagues who are joining us today, particularly the Minister for Defence Christopher Pyne, congratulations Christopher on your stewardship of this....

What that means is that ensuring we are at the front of the pack when it comes to the latest naval vessels and firepower. As part of our Government's plan to keep Australians safe, we’re celebrating a milestone today with the next phase of our Future Submarine Program. In 2016 the Government selected France and Naval Group as our international partners to deliver a 12 strong fleet of cutting-edge submarines, as we promised to do. The signing today of the Strategic Partnership Agreement to deliver these submarines underscores the longstanding and strategic partnership between Australia and France.

...It’s more than a contract.

This is a project that will not only keep Australians safe, but it will deliver Australian jobs. It will build Australian skills. It will be made and require Australian steel....

Our Government is committed to maximising Australian industry content in the Future Submarine Program...

Hundreds of Australians are already employed on the Future Submarines Program and thousands more will be through the supply chain during the construction phase. So, as pleased as I know Premier Marshall is about the jobs in South Australia, these jobs reach right across our great continent.

The signing of this agreement today demonstrates our Government is delivering on our promise on the naval shipbuilding plan. It is a $90 billion commitment to build in total 54 new naval vessels and grow a strong, sustainable and sovereign Australian naval shipbuilding industry.

...Our region, which we keep secure, in close partnership with our valued allies. So we are delivering for our Navy, our nation and our people as we promised. We are delivering for our defence industry and jobs and we are delivering on our steadfast commitment to keep Australians safe and secure.

I conclude by thanking again all of those who have brought us to this point today, but I particularly want to commend Ministers Pyne and Parly for the wonderful working relationship they've had to bring us to where they are today and look forward to that relationship continuing into the future as we get this done. Thank you.”

Pyne and Morrison pleased with themselves, while Parly pensive. Note submarine model has that controversial pump jet which France most probably won't be supplying.
---

 Next is a Submarine Matters article with Naval Group comments on the SPA.

Pete

Good Youtube: Submarine food, gyms, Dear John letters, nav and collisions

As evey man and his dog has published today on the latest Australia-France submarine sign-off, squeezed in before the May 2019 Australian Election (remember that?) I'll comment on that tomorrow. 

Meanwhile, above is a high standard submarine youtube, dated February 5, 2019, by Wendover Productions, on the following subjects: 

0 – 4 minutes - mainly nuclear weapons implications of SSBNs

2:45 UK launch and other instructions to UK SSBN if Britain destroyed

3:05 UK SSBN may then do nothing or place itself under the command of US “or Australia”

  

4:28 subs have best food, why? “The chef has nowhere to hide if food is bad” :)

4:46 fresh food only lasts 2 weeks then goes downhill to canned

6:08 relatively huge (for a sub) US cafeteria seating. [The torpedo room is no longer the biggest crew hangout place] my comments are in [...] brackets.

6:13 gym equipment

6:23 bunks still cramped

6:40 personal comms from loved ones comes to personal email addesses on US subs. But messages still read first by a comms officer to 7:00 stop distressing family news [eg. Dear John letters] 

7:20 VLF radio waves can be received underwater for instructions

7:45 VLF stations for US, UK and Australian subs include [lost at sea Australian Prime Minister] Harold E. Holt Naval (VLF) Communication Station in Western Australia

8:20 subs can actually transmit to satellite. [Though this is indiscrete, potentially interceptable by sophisticated Russian or Chinese opponents]

8:40 fully submerged navigation difficult. Active sonar indiscrete.

9:07 [Old fashioned] inertial navigation still used.

9:52 SSBNs are so stealthy that they may not sense each other - so collisions can occur – as happened in 2009 between a French and British SSBN

10:18 subs are dangerous , even in peacetime.

10:30 rescue subs

11:09 submarines are the best platform for anti-submarine warfare

Pete

Some big problems doomed USS Fitzgerald before its fatal crash

Here is some fascinating reading reproduced by Business Insider Australia, February 9, 2019, on USS Fitzgerald's many problems before its 2017 collision. Problems in the US Navy were (are?) even worse than originally thought.

USS Fitzgerald towed into US naval base Yokosuka, southwest of Tokyo, June 2017, after collision. (Photo courtesy Spc. 1st Class Peter Burghart/US Navy via AP).

---

Submarine Matters originally reported on the fatal USS Fitzgerald collision on June 18, 2017 and on August 24, 2017.

Pete

South Korea Providing Mixed Signals Prior to Next Trump-Kim Summit

An ageless cartoon: the risk of another North Korean attack and How Should The US Prevent It?

---

The Second Trump-Kim Denuclearization Summit (in Vietnam, February 27-28, 2019) shares all the irritations as the First Summit.

On February 7, 2019 Anonymous kindly provided a comment below the article 

Trump Meeting Kim in Vietnam - Where US Abandoned South Vietnam (February 7). Pete has  further translated the comment, added additional links and provided extra comments in [...] brackets.

North Korea’s (NK’s) nuclear weapon and missile development has never stopped under the Kim dynasty no matter how much the Kims have been economical with the truth. Trump should not meet Kim Jong-un unless Trump insists on a genuine program of Complete, Verifiable and Irreversible Dismantlement (CVID). as assessed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). [But the goal "Irreversible Dismantlement" is impossible without constant and open international inspections of NK's military nuclear facilities and missile launch sites].

The US and SK have reached a preliminary settlement of the Special Measure Agreement (SMA). The SMA involves SK financial contributions to the non-personnel military costs of stationing US personnel in SK, which is updated every 5 years. With the SMA on the way to settlement US troops should not withdraw from SK. As such a withdrawal would only encourage NK to forcibly unite the Korean Peninsula [see [1] and [2] below]. [by invading SK].

[The defense of SK is not being helped by the mixed signals SK is giving NK.]

SK has breached international sanctions by supplying petroleum products to NK [3]

Contemporaries of SK President Moon Jae-in “the so-called 386 Generation” have a leftwing view of NK and the world.

[“members of the 386 Generation are generally not as enthusiastic about US-South Korean relationships as their parents’ generation, and some have gone so far as to support the removal of US troops from the Korean peninsula altogether. Some of them are also sympathetic to the North Korean [maybe "better red than dead"?]  regime and advocate a peace agreement with North Korea at all costs.”]

[1] https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/us-south-korea-reach-preliminary-one-year-burden-sharing-agreement/ [paysite] On February 5, 2019 the US and SK reached a preliminary 1 year Burden-Sharing Agreement under which SK’s SMA contribution will rise to US$1 Billion per year.

[2] There is [mutual aid but no] automatic armed intervention clause in “Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea”. When NK subsequently invades SK, after a US troop withdrawal, US intervention would need the approval of the US Senate. In the worst case scenario, by the time the US tries to intervene this would be blocked by NK stationing nuclear missiles on what would be now "former SK territory".

[3] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/01/31/asia-pacific/u-n-panel-concludes-south-korea-shipments-petroleum-north-violated-sanctions-sources-say/#.XFv1czP7TIU
“U.N. panel to accuse South Korea of violating sanctions with petroleum shipments to North, sources say”

[Pete Comment - Over the decades NK, a very poor country, has spent a large proportion of its national income on building up its nuclear weapon and missile capability. NK is therefore very unlikely to dismantle its nuclear deterrent (against yet another invasion by the US). 

The only reasonable hope is that NK slows down construction of this nuclear capability and adopts a more positive attitude to South Korea, Japan, the US and other countries

For a previous article I wrote about this issue see North Korea's Nuclear Deterrent Totally Justified of May 24, 2018 ].

Anonymous and Pete